THREAD IS CLOSED! --- Bob Brinker Free Discussion Site 11K+

http://bobbrinker.com/portfolio.asp

Top 7032. Jan 13, 2001 2:33 PM

» smile_1 - Re: betas for Brinker's portfolio's 1,2, & 3

In response to message posted by smile_1:

Beta for Portfolio I = .32

Beta for Portfolio II = .32

Beta for Portfolio III = .15

anyone know how Brinker is fabricating (I mean calculating) these #'s?

-- posted by smile_1

Top 7033. Jan 13, 2001 2:33 PM

» Rande - Re: Re: Why do some people get so upset at the facts? Psycholog

In response to message posted by Fahrenheit451:

F451,

Don't look now, but nobody's stopping you or anyone else from posting all the specifics about Brinker's great performance. There's been nothing but generalities and opinion from you and the rest of the pro side. Here's some facts:

Brinker botched 1987, being bullish going into the Crash and turning bearish after the fact, in time to miss the subsequent runup.

Brinker recommended MSFT in 1990, but had it a "hold" for much of the 1990s runup when new subscribers could have benefitted greatly from a "buy" recommendation. He continued the hold even during his move to cash, losing over 63% of everything since 1/10/00.

Brinker stayed fully invested during the 1990s bull market, yet failed to beat the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the S&P 500, The S&P 400, the Nasdaq Composite, the Wilshire 5000, the Morningstar Large Growth active mutual fund group, Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth active mutual fund group, Morningstar Small-Cap Growth active mutual fund group.

Brinker's most recent string of specific Marketimer stock/stock fund write-ups were all busts -- ONTK, Montg. Micro-cap, UTEK, TEFQX

Brinker pulled out of the market in January of 2000, missing another 30%+ in the Nasdaq through March, citing the excuse that it was just a "sector" and "impossible" to time.

Brinker said in late Feb. that the S&P 500 had "no chance" to return to new highs in the forseeable future based on his timing model, right before it had the BEST month in its history as it went to new highs in March.

Brinker said to buy QQQ "immediately" in mid-Oct. right before it had its WORST month in history in November, going on to lose in excess of 40% from the worst point of that mid-Oct. period.

YOUR TURN But, please, just the facts. And be specific. No generalities, broad platitudes, or personal attacks.

-- posted by Rande

Top 7034. Jan 13, 2001 2:40 PM

» Kirk - Re: Why do some people get so upset at the facts?

In response to message posted by Rande:

Sometimes I think we waste our time chasing windmills...

Visit my pay-per-click sponsors ------ PLEASE -----------------\/

-- posted by Kirk

Top 7035. Jan 13, 2001 2:45 PM

» Fahrenheit451 - Re: Re: Re: Why do some people get so upset at the facts? Psych

In response to message posted by Rande:

PMFJI, but I will add my answers to the fray.

"Has Brinker's newsletter performance FAILED to beat every reasonable benchmark index and active peer group since 1/1/88?"

I would say tentatively yes, with a caveat: One of the principles of comparing portfolios is to compare ones with comparable risk level. At the present time it has not been proven whether his model portfolios, by virtue of including his long-term timing efforts, reduce the risk of riding out a bear market sufficiently to make up for the difference in performance.

"Have Brinker's specific stock and fund picks been more wrong than right?"

Don't know. There are something like 20 to 30 specific recommended stocks and funds in the newsletter at any given time, and I don't follow many of them.

"Brinker a humble, honest individual?"

Humble, no. I think he is honest in most ways, although I concede that he is reluctant to admit failings.

"Why do people show such allegiance to yet another failed guru, and a nasty one at that?"

Have you stopped beating your wife? The question assumes facts not in evidence. If you spend large amounts of time on someone's web site trying to discredit him and he kicks you off, does that make him "nasty"? Beats the heck out of me. If someone gets the overall direction of the market right for eleven straight years, but stumbles on short term timing and on some of his investment picks, does that make all of his advice worthless? Only for those who are not able or willing to learn what his strengths AND weaknesses are.

"Would people be better off following a buy-and-hold long term approach?"

Unknown at this time. Plausibility arguments can and have been made on both sides, but it is a very difficult premise to prove or disprove, because of the very long time frame required to gather a statistically valid quantity of data.

"Isn't it a worthwhile endeavor to point these things out so that more investors will have a chance for long term success?"

Intelligent debate in a context of mutual respect is always worthwhile.

-- posted by Fahrenheit451

Top 7036. Jan 13, 2001 2:52 PM

» Rande - Re: Re: Why do some people get so upset at the facts?

In response to message posted by Kirk:

Kirk,

Forget about Brinker, if one person abandons the bankrupt notion of secret models that predict the future, market timing, and quick-buck short term trading schemes and instead embraces the more prudent and widely-accepted approach of patient long-term investing, then it's worth it.

-- posted by Rande

Top 7037. Jan 13, 2001 3:03 PM

» shallam - Great job

What a splendid job the caller screener did today! The caller screener made absolutely sure that not one interesting call got through (as of 6pm EST). For those interested in the stock market there was preciously little of worth.

-- posted by shallam

Top 7038. Jan 13, 2001 3:15 PM

» shallam - Re: Re: Re: Why do some people get so upset at the facts? Psych

RE:
Brinker recommended MSFT in 1990, but had it a "hold" for much of the 1990s runup when new subscribers could have benefitted greatly from a "buy" recommendation. He continued the hold even during his move to cash, losing over 63% of everything since 1/10/00."

No way that a complete analysis of msft can be fairly viewed as a negative. Seems to me that it is one of his GREAT calls. Saying that he didn't play every upswing perfectly is using an unfair comparison.

-- posted by shallam

Top 7039. Jan 13, 2001 3:24 PM

» RamblinMan - Why Bob Brinker & Jerry Springer?

Why is this thread titled Bob Brinker & Jerry Springer? Is that an attempt by he who controls this site to discourage the serious discussion of Bob's ideas? Is it a not so subtle attempt to keep this thread confined to the ridicule of Bob?

-- posted by RamblinMan

Top 7040. Jan 13, 2001 3:26 PM

» ACousins - Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do some people get so upset at the facts? P

In response to message posted by Fahrenheit451:

The question assumes facts not in evidence. If you spend large amounts of time on someone's web site trying to discredit him..

F451, now you are assuming facts that are not in evidence. If you insist on others being credible and factual then you need to be also.

There are something like 20 to 30 specific recommended stocks and funds ...and I don't follow many of them

Then how do you know if he's right, wrong, indifferent, an idiot or a genius? What do you base your facts on?

does that make all of his advice worthless?

Who in the world said that besides you?

-- posted by ACousins